Oakland likely can't afford to keep team in town

As recently as early June, the plans for a stadium in Los Angeles to house a future NFL team were described as “essentially dead.”

Yet the possibility of a stadium there still has the power to back a city and its citizens against a wall. It has given cities leverage to get taxpayers to build new stadiums or make expensive improvements to old ones—and now, it might subject Oakland and its citizens to the indignity of losing its favorite team to the same city twice in barely three decades.

“Of all the situations, this is the one where moving to LA is most likely to happen,’’ said Victor Matheson, a Holy Cross economics professor and, with colleague Robert Baade, author of several studies on public stadium financing.

“It sucks to be an Oakland Raiders fan—not a Raiders fan, but an Oakland Raiders fan,’’ Matheson added.

Oakland is on the hot seat because the Raiders’ lease with the 47-year-old O.co Coliseum expires after the upcoming season. Owner Mark Davis—the son of Al, who moved the team to LA in 1982—has said he does not want to sign another short-term lease, and a month ago consultants hired by the team proposed a new $800 million, 56,500-seat stadium to local government officials.

The city and county, however, would have to chip in $300 million. With all the other economic challenges facing Oakland, they simply cannot afford it.

But, Matheson pointed out, “The NFL has been masterful in using the LA situation to extract new stadiums out of everybody.’’

The Minnesota Vikings are the latest example: Their stadium in Minneapolis is scheduled to break ground this fall and open in 2016. Just over half of the current $975 million cost will come from public money, according to the Vikings.

At the very least, the Colts, Saints, Panthers, Chargers, Rams and Jaguars either have used or are using the specter of moving to Los Angeles as leverage to get either new homes or upgrades from the public, Matheson said, adding that in such cases, “the NFL can really engage in extortion.’’

There are a few exceptions among recent new stadiums—but unfortunately for the Raiders, one of them is the 49ers’ $1.3 billion palace opening in Santa Clara next season.

That only increases the owner’s envy for Davis, Matheson said, and might derail any compromise offer of less-costly renovations to the old stadium.

“The Raiders are going to look across at Santa Clara and say, ‘The Niners got a billion-dollar stadium—that’s what we want,’’ Matheson said. “Owners aren’t going to be placated by some freshening up and a coat of paint.’’

One other exception to the Los Angeles bait is the Dolphins, Matheson said, even though the team in May lost its bid for $350 million of public money to improve SunLife Stadium—and lost Mike Dee, its CEO and stadium advocate, to the Padres shortly afterward.

The Dolphins have no incentive to leave South Florida, even for LA, Matheson said, and it appears that the fight for the team will be between cities and counties willing to pony up to owner Stephen Ross. Asked by reporters last Thursday about the future of renovating the stadium, Ross said, “Have I given up? The answer is no.’’

Ross added that where the stadium currently stands is “the best location.’’

“It’s harder to use the LA card if you’re such an established team in a market like that,’’ Matheson said.

The urgency for Oakland and its people is obvious, even with the two proposed Los Angeles stadium projects becoming too expensive and too complicated with ownership demands.

In late July, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said that he envisioned two existing teams eventually landing in Los Angeles. "It's more imminent than any time since we haven't had a team in Los Angeles," he told NFL Network.

Making Oakland’s situation even more complicated is the fact that it’s already on track to lose the NBA’s Golden State Warriors to a new San Francisco arena in 2017, and that the baseball Athletics also want a new stadium.

During last week’s local broadcast of the Raiders’ preseason game against the Cowboys, the Raiders’ announcers pointed out frequently how theirs was the only NFL team left playing in a baseball stadium, and on infield dirt in part of the playing field.

Davis and the Raiders have not commented on the proposal since the presentation to the Oakland-Alameda County Commission was made a month ago Friday. The next commission meeting—with the Raiders’ situation on the agenda—was scheduled for this Friday, but was postponed without a new date announced.

City and county officials knew even before the proposal that the clock was ticking. "There is no set deadline … but we know time is not on our side, even if there isn't a deadline," assistant city administrator Fred Blackwell told the Oakland Tribune at the time.

Everybody is also painfully aware that Los Angeles is once again an option—the Raiders’ fan that started an online petition to Davis this week named it, “Don’t Move to LA.”

This time—for the second time—there might be nothing Oakland or its fans can do about it.

It isn’t fair to them, Matheson. But, when all factors are considered, “Los Angeles could end up paying less to get the Raiders than Oakland can pay to keep them.’’